Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Manchanda v. Emons

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

March 1, 2017

Rahul Manchanda, PLAINTIFF,
v.
Jane Emons, et al., DEFENDANTS.

          MEMORANDUM OF DECISION DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

          Hon. Vanessa L. Bryant, United States District Judge

         Plaintiff, Rahul Manchanda (“Manchanda” or “Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, has brought suit against Defendants Jane Emons, Cheryl Weir-Reeves, James Kenefick, Karen Lupuloff, Elizabeth Bozzuto, Clark Richardson, George Daniels, and Joan Madden, all of whom are judges in New York or Connecticut State Courts, and the New York and Connecticut Commissions on Judicial Conduct (collectively, the “Judicial Defendants”), as well as the “NY FBI, ” “New Haven FBI, ” “US Attorney SDNY, ” and “US Attorney New Haven CT.” [Dkt. No. 1 at 1.] In addition, Manchanda moved to amend his complaint to add the New York and Connecticut Attorney General's Offices as defendants. [Dkt. No. 14.] Most recently, Manchanda moved to add Wesley Blackman of the New York Child Support Enforcement Unit as a defendant.[1] [Dkt. No. 19.] He claims all Defendants “aided and abetted” in the deprivation of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations Act of 1970, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (“RICO”). For the reasons stated hereafter, the Plaintiff's action is dismissed sua sponte.

         I. Factual Background

         Plaintiff asserts he and his ex-wife have been litigating child support and visitation rights for ten years. [Dkt. No. 1 at 3.] He alleges the Judicial Defendants, “NY FBI, ” “New Haven FBI, ” “US Attorney SDNY, ” and “US Attorney New Haven CT, ” as well as their staff, “aided and abetted” his ex-wife in furthering a “criminal conspiracy” to kidnap his two minor children for two years, causing his children “psychological/mental/emotional/physical abuse.” [Dkt. No. 1 at 3.] Plaintiff asserts the Defendants' conduct was “illegal/unethical/criminal/judicial misconduct.” Id.

         The litigation appears to have originated in New York Family Court and been transferred to Connecticut Superior Court. Plaintiff alleges Judge Richardson transferred the child support and visitation actions from New York Family Court to New Haven, Connecticut Superior Court, under Judge Emons, because his ex-wife “packed up and moved to Connecticut to be with her new husband.” [Dkt. No. 1 at 5.]

         Plaintiff disputes the transfer to Connecticut, and has moved three times for an order to show cause why venue and jurisdiction in New Haven are proper. [Dkt. No. 1 at 3.] Judge Weir-Reeves denied all three motions; Plaintiff does not provide the reasoning for Judge Weir-Reeves' rulings or for his motions. Id.

         Plaintiff has also moved to find his ex-wife in contempt. [Dkt. No. 1 at 3.] He does not indicate the substance of his motion for contempt other than to characterize his ex-wife's conduct as “criminal.” Id. Judges Emons and Kenefick have each denied such motions for contempt. Id.

         Plaintiff also asserts, in his motion to amend his complaint, that the New York and Connecticut Attorney General's Offices “ignored [the] Plaintiff's countless complaints to their offices for the past 10 years, as well as represented many of the listed defendants against the undersigned Plaintiff, and therefore directly contributed to, aided, abetted, facilitated, and made possible [his] ex-wife . . . continuing to illegally forum shop, abuse undersigned's children, kidnap undersigned children, parentally alienate undersigned's children, violate visitation orders, and otherwise operate in open contempt of court.” [Dkt. No. 14 at 1.]

         Plaintiff also asserts, in his motion to add an additional defendant, that Wesley Blackman of the New York Child Support Enforcement Unit fabricated child support documents and provided them to Judge Weir-Reeves. [Dkt. No. 19 at 1.] He asserts Blackman's actions were “grossly incompetent, negligent, if not purposefully evil.” Id. Plaintiff alleges Blackman's actions, like the actions of the New York and Connecticut Attorney General's Offices, “directly contributed to, aided, abetted, facilitated, and made possible [his] ex-wife . . . continuing to illegally forum shop, abuse undersigned's children, kidnap undersigned children, parentally alienate undersigned's children, violate visitation orders, and otherwise operate in open contempt of court.” Id.

         Plaintiff also levies general allegations against all Defendants, stating they all assisted his ex-wife in “her illegal forum shopping” in New York and Connecticut for the past ten years, and alleging the Defendants have used the “courts to target and harass Plaintiff . . . because of his status as a Political Dissident.” [Dkt. No. 1 at 3.] Plaintiff does not detail why he considers himself a political dissident. Plaintiff also asserts all Defendants have ignored his “countless complaints and requests for investigation/intervention” regarding his child support and visitation disputes, and argues their inaction has “further worsen[ed] the situation.” [Dkt. No. 1 at 6.] Plaintiff also alleges there “may have been” an orchestrated effort by all named defendants to ignore his complaints, in “some type of Stasi-like targeted individual Zersetzung program . . . targeted government persecution based on undersigned Plaintiff's status as a Political Dissident.” Id. at 6.

         Plaintiff further alleges he has “written to multiple federal, state and local law enforcement and media outlets” seeking relief from litigation with his wife regarding child support and visitation rights which he asserts is “frivolous” an intended to “destroy each and every aspect of [Plaintiff's] life.” Id. at 4. He wrote a letter to “senior and presiding judges who have handled this matter for the past 10 years, ” stating if his child support and visitation actions were not dismissed, he would be “forced to bring a federal lawsuit . . . naming [his ex-wife], her attorney, and each and every single judge, law clerk, and court officer involved in this 10 year torturing of me and my children.” [Dkt. No. 1 at 6.] The letter went unanswered, and Plaintiff brought the instant action. Id.

         Plaintiff claims deprivation of his Constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations Act of 1970, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (“RICO”). He seeks “contempt, costs, and sanctions” against them, as well as “$100, 000, 000 in actual and punitive damages.” [Dkt. Nos. 1 at 5; 14 at 2; 19 at 2.]

         II. Analysis

         The Court may dismiss sua sponte an action filed by a pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis if the Court determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2). An action is “frivolous” when either: (1) “the ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless, ' such as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy;” or (2) “the claim is ‘based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.'” Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir.1998) (citations omitted) (discussing terms as applied in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(1), which requires dismissal of in forma pauperis actions that are “frivolous or ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.